Regards~~~
-Sujing Zhou
ipv6-boun...@ietf.org 写于 2012-04-18 12:25:26:
> Hi, Karl,
>
> On 04/17/2012 09:58 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> > A DHCPv6 server that allocates addresses linearly would be better
fixed
> > not to do so, than to go to the trouble of implementing stable
addresses
> > a la Gont
Hi, Bob,
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my responses in-line...
On 04/17/2012 08:58 PM, Bob Hinden wrote:
> In the Introduction the draft mentions that the IEEE MAC based
> interface identifiers don't eliminate the threat from host scanning.
> To justify this the document reference
Hi, Karl,
On 04/17/2012 09:58 PM, Karl Auer wrote:
> A DHCPv6 server that allocates addresses linearly would be better fixed
> not to do so, than to go to the trouble of implementing stable addresses
> a la Gont.
Not sure what you mean. -- Having the DHCPv6 server implement
draft-gont-6man-stable
On Tue, 2012-04-17 at 16:58 -0700, Bob Hinden wrote:
> Could these types of Interface Identifiers also be generated by DHCPv6
> servers. I would think that it would be useful to generate these hard
> to predict IIDs when a DHCPv6 server is providing addresses. This
> would be much better than ass
Fernando,
This is my personal views from reading the draft.
Generally I support the idea in this draft that another type of privacy
addresses would be useful to add to IPv6. For example, to not expose the
vendor IDs in IEEE MAC addresses. I have some comments on the internet draft.
Bob
On Tue, Apr 17, 2012 at 12:09 PM, RJ Atkinson wrote:
>
> I support publishing this as an Experimental status RFC
> on the IETF track.
+1
Behcet
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: http
I support publishing this as an Experimental status RFC
on the IETF track.
My earlier concerns with character set considerations
are resolved with the current text in Section 7.1 of
this document.
Yours,
Ran Atkinson
IETF
